Design Review Committee continues final review of proposed mixed-use building at 145 W. Pearl

The Design Review Committee continued final review of a proposed mixed‑use building at 145 West Pearl Street on Sept. 10, asking the applicant to return with revised drawings addressing massing, pedestrian‑level proportions and a landscape plan that specifies replacement trees.

Planning staff opened the item by restating concerns from the committee’s August 13 review, including that “the mezzanines behind Pearl Street did not meet the intended purpose of the definitions of mezzanines within the building code,” and that the earlier design “did not adequately reflect western character or meet the goals of the downtown design overlay,” staff said.

Brian Young, an architect with Access Architects, presented updated plans and said the design team had moved mezzanines away from primary street facades, adjusted stepbacks and changed materials to natural stone and stained cedar to reduce a perceived four‑story appearance. “We have done everything we can to create a two‑story expression at this point,” Young said.

Committee members praised progress but repeatedly raised four themes: (1) first‑floor street presence and retail access, (2) the apparent size and visibility of the third‑floor/clearstory volume, (3) the west elevation that faces a neighboring protected green space, and (4) a landscape plan that must clarify tree removals and replacement sizes. Several members said dropping the retail floor 40 inches below the sidewalk — a move the applicant made to achieve 12 feet of interior retail ceiling height — left the exterior appearance “squatty” and would reduce retail flexibility and street vitality. Planning staff noted that, under current rules, street‑level floor‑to‑ceiling requirements are measured from the adjacent curb, which affects how the applicant can meet both interior retail heights and the downtown “two‑story” street expression.

Committee members asked the applicant for more sections showing how the 40‑inch drop relates to the curb, for material samples and details on window and metal panel rhythms. The committee also questioned whether the project’s mezzanines and 17‑foot master suite ceilings produced a third floor that reads as an additional story; some members said the clearstory floor area felt more like a full story than a traditional mezzanine.

On the subject of landscaping and trees, the applicant said an arborist report (Timberline Arborist) concluded several large firs on the neighboring Ted Star property were near the end of their lives and likely would not survive construction; the owner has agreed to plant new, significant trees on Mr. Star’s property as mitigation. Committee members asked the applicant to include specific replacement species and sizes in the next submission.

After discussion, a committee member moved to continue the item to the planning director for design review; a second was called and the chair recorded “Aye.” The motion passed and the committee continued the application. The transcript does not record a detailed roll‑call vote tally.

The committee asked the applicant to return with revised drawings and materials that address the committee’s stated concerns — specifically: clarified first‑floor grade and retail access; reduced visual dominance of the third‑floor/clearstory (including possible lowering of tall master volumes); a broken‑up and more articulated west elevation; window and metal panel details that align window sizes with interior uses; and a landscape plan showing replacement tree species and sizes. The applicant indicated they understood the direction and will prepare the requested revisions.

The committee framed its decision as a continuation, not an approval; members emphasized that the project showed substantial improvement from the prior submittal but still requires further refinement of proportions, materials and the pedestrian‑level condition before final sign‑off.